I've seen these caching challenge caches and others that have special logging requirements of one sort or another. For the most part they don't interest me, but I acknowledge that many others are thrilled for the challenge presented.

Since most of my caching is done with just a GPSr, no PDA, no paper cache sheets, just pre-loaded traditional caches with the most minimal info about them (whatever comes over in my p.q.'s), I usually would have no idea that a cache had special logging requirements.

If I happen to find one of these, I'm pretty sure I would post a find - ignoring the requirements.

What are the official Groundspeak rules about logging requirements? There must be a posted set of these rules that I have overlooked. I know I would be quite miffed if I had a log deleted on what I consider to be a legitimate find.

As I understand it, forcing people to hide new caches is not really allowed. What about the sillier things (dressing up and taking photos, etc.)_________________-Paklid

The ones I have seen have been listed as unknown caches. I never have those in my pocket queries. I see no difference than any puzzle cache, if you do not know it is a puzzle you could spend a lot of time looking in the wrong area.

The ones I have seen have been listed as unknown caches. I never have those in my pocket queries. I see no difference than any puzzle cache, if you do not know it is a puzzle you could spend a lot of time looking in the wrong area.

Which is why anything that cannot be completely solved in the field (I am guilty of listing puzzle mulltis as multis instead of mystery caches) should be listed as a Mystery.

It's especially aggravating when you go on a caching trip to another area and spend the day caching and find several caches that are listed as traditionals that either force log deletions or you can't find them at all because they are a puzzle or long multi.

The ones I have seen have been listed as unknown caches. I never have those in my pocket queries. I see no difference than any puzzle cache, if you do not know it is a puzzle you could spend a lot of time looking in the wrong area.

Which is why anything that cannot be completely solved in the field (I am guilty of listing puzzle mulltis as multis instead of mystery caches) should be listed as a Mystery.

It's especially aggravating when you go on a caching trip to another area and spend the day caching and find several caches that are listed as traditionals that either force log deletions or you can't find them at all because they are a puzzle or long multi.

When I, and another cacher, marked that last cache to be moved to be a Mystery it was ignored. Boo. I should SBA it.

how can you change a cache type? my understanding is that the cache needs to be archived and then resubmitted with a different cache type....the original logs wouldn't transfer over (it being a "new" cache). Maybe that's why the cache owner ignored your request. Of course, another possibility is that the cache owner might KNOW you and decided to derive some sick pleasure by ignoring your request - either seems plausible............._________________-Paklid

I admire the spirit and creativity of the Challenge series but don't like caches that only 1% of cachers can log. But it is an acceptable type of cache. GroundSpeak stated that special logging requirement caches are an "extremely unpopular style of cache".

I toyed with creating one called Fischer Price - My First Cache. You could only log it if it was your first cache. This would most likely never be logged except by people who created a new profile just to log it.

Then I thought about The Road to Recovery - This is my last cache. Again no one would log it.

Next came Correctional Facility Workhouse Workhouse on the site of the former City of Minneapolis Workhouse and the requirement was to be that you had to have been sentenced and served time in a correctional facility. You didn't have to say what you were convicted of or you plea but you would have had to say were, when and how long your stay was. I placed this one but without the special logging requirements.

In the end I just went with Festivus for the rest of us -FTF. You have to have less than 100 FTF's when you log the cache. I suspect that 99% of cachers meet that requirement and if someone with more than 100 ftf's logs it what the do I care. I really got a chuckle out of RickRich's entry, that was too funny.

I think the more variety the better. It will never happen, but I think they should reinstate Virtuals, moving caches, and all of the other cool ideas which got me into caching to begin with. I mean really, what cross section of geocachers actually visit waymarking.com on a regular basis? I bet the number is very small.

how can you change a cache type? my understanding is that the cache needs to be archived and then resubmitted with a different cache type....the original logs wouldn't transfer over (it being a "new" cache). Maybe that's why the cache owner ignored your request.

I'm aware of the issues surrounding my very valid request but they aren't quite as important as following the rules.

The reviewer should never have approved the cache in its current state anyway._________________Sad state of affairs.

I think the more variety the better. It will never happen, but I think they should reinstate Virtuals, moving caches, and all of the other cool ideas which got me into caching to begin with. I mean really, what cross section of geocachers actually visit waymarking.com on a regular basis? I bet the number is very small.

I haven't found a single cache since I have returned from Omaha in January. I attended 5 events in the last year (I once attended ~5 in a 10 day period). While it has more to do with how the activity has changed overall, it just gets a little old when you visit the same park, for the fourth time, and find a cache less than 5 feet from where you found one 3 years before.

I admire the spirit and creativity of the Challenge series but don't like caches that only 1% of cachers can log. But it is an acceptable type of cache. GroundSpeak stated that special logging requirement caches are an "extremely unpopular style of cache".

I toyed with creating one called Fischer Price - My First Cache. You could only log it if it was your first cache. This would most likely never be logged except by people who created a new profile just to log it.

Then I thought about The Road to Recovery - This is my last cache. Again no one would log it.

Next came Correctional Facility Workhouse Workhouse on the site of the former City of Minneapolis Workhouse and the requirement was to be that you had to have been sentenced and served time in a correctional facility. You didn't have to say what you were convicted of or you plea but you would have had to say were, when and how long your stay was. I placed this one but without the special logging requirements.

In the end I just went with Festivus for the rest of us -FTF. You have to have less than 100 FTF's when you log the cache. I suspect that 99% of cachers meet that requirement and if someone with more than 100 ftf's logs it what the do I care. I really got a chuckle out of RickRich's entry, that was too funny.

As far as I have see the caches you are talking about all have something to do with caching and the ones you have considered to do yourself have nothing to do with caching. There are about to be a lot of caches published in State Parks and some that you will only be able to get after comlpeating a certain number of parks, do you think those should not be allowed? I like the idea of caches that celebrate an accomplishment in caching, it gives you something to work for. I am not of a big fan of puzzles, some because I can't even see the puzzle . In some cases it will cause you not be able to hide a cache because where the actual hide is is not posted and you will not know until you get a reviewer note, but I would never say the should not be listed as I know many enjoy them. Check my finds, not many puzzle finds but I enjoy doing all the others that are available. Let's just have fun!